The Vine: April 1, 2005
Here’s the deal: I’ve been going to a particular waxer, at a particular
spa, for over a year now. The prices are a bit steep, but honestly, this
particular waxer is worth it; if you’ve dabbled in the delicate art of
masochism via little cotton strip yourself, you know how difficult it can
be to find a really competent esthetician. (Not that it doesn’t still hurt
like a sumbitch, of course.)
Anyway, since I generally find myself spending an hour or so undergoing her
tender ministrations every four or five weeks, we’ve developed what I would
term a friendly professional acquaintance. At first, we would chat about
waxing vs. shaving, how much (or little) it hurt, with the occasional brief
foray into personal small talk of the “so, going anywhere for the
holidays?” variety. To be frank, I’d be just as happy staring into space in
silence for the duration of the session (allowing for the occasional
instruction to move my leg, or stretch my skin), but it’s not like the
enforced conversation was a major imposition.
Until (yes, it’s — the point!) she started talking to me about her
book. The book she has written, that is, that will allegedly soon be
published, that deals with her relationship with the angels, which
apparently include long conversations and consultations over how to “heal”
her “clients,” as well as miscellaneous and sundry visitations, miracles
and general fuzzy new-age self-helpism. The first time she brought it up, I
was polite (because she was pouring hot wax on my girl parts, and because I
was brought up right), but non-effusive, but apparently, that was too
subtle for her. Now she has presented me with a copy of said book, and
wants me to offer a review or testimonial for its eventual listing on Amazon.
Now, I have no problem with people reading, or writing, books about their
very special angel buddies, but I am a fairly curmudgeonly agnostic with
very little interest in that particular genre. I’m also a journalist by
profession, of the freelance variety (the kind who makes enough to eat,
just), who occasionally appears on television and radio to punditize on
matters related to my field of (alleged) expertise, and while I am hardly
well-known, I do have a fairly unusual name, and the thought of having
it out there, as Googlebait, attached to a review of some loopy book about
angelic healing miracles, doesn’t exactly thrill me to the depths of my
very soul either.
So, to cut to the chase, I don’t want to write the review, and I don’t want
to have any more conversations about angels, or publishing deals, with my
waxer, but I would very much like to continue to pay her money to rip the
hair off my legs, and other parts, which would mean that I have to achieve
the former desire without sacrificing the latter. Any suggestions?
Sincerely,
Next Time, I Promise I’ll Ask Something About Boys
Dear I Think We’ve Got The Boy Questions Covered, But Thanks,
Switch waxers. You can’t do the review, because…come on, and you can’t give the book back to her with a polite “I don’t feel comfortable,” either, because she’s in charge of depilating your wonderfulness, and that’s…not a good situation.
I understand that changing estheticians is an annoyance, but…your current one is an annoyance, and should know better than to pressure clients to review her smurfy angel book. It’s unprofessional. Lord knows what else she’s doing. Ask your friends for a waxer rec; hell, I’ll give you one if you’re in NYC. But don’t go back to this one.
Dear Sars,
I’m a female working in the engineering department of a large southern
corporation. The gentleman I work for is actually a neighbor of my
parents. I went to high school with his two daughters and grew up
beside them since the age of 10. Because I grew up with him down the
street I know his thinking about women: they are to be protected and
cared for. A woman’s work is inside cooking and cleaning, while men
handle the work around the house and the yard. However, being his
neighbor for so long, he is fully aware that I grew up cutting up
trees and pushing lawnmowers right alongside my father and brother.
Whatever thinking he has on women and their abilities, he hasn’t
bought them into the workplace. He has been fair in his dealings with
me and has never tried to hinder my working because I’m female and
“shouldn’t or can’t do that.” We’ve developed a fabulous working
relationship and have actually become good friends, and I’ve gotten
over the guilty feelings of nepotism I first had when I started the
job.
My only complaint is that his southern ideals do not allow me to pay
for my lunch when we go out, whether it just be the two of us or a
group. He has said that he’s come to regard me like a daughter, and
he’d never allow his own girls to pay for their lunch. While I
appreciate that sentiment and his treat to lunch, I can’t help feeling
a little bit small every time he does, especially if it happens in
front of others. I’ve tried arguing with him on this point, and any
discussion I try approach him with on this subject is met with a wave
of the hand. He won’t even allow me to pick up lunch next time we go
out together.
I’m not sure what else to do. I appreciate it, but can’t help feel
like I’m not right in taking these lunches. Any ideas, Sars?
Thanks,
No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Dear Free,
I can see why you don’t love this habit of his, especially if he does it around others, because it sends a certain message about your relationship — i.e. that he’s the protector — that you don’t want sent. So, you might try talking to him about it again, saying that while you really appreciate his picking up the tab and you don’t wish to appear ungrateful, co-workers might get the wrong idea, so if maybe he could let you pay in group situations now and then, you’d appreciate that, too.
But it’s possible that he’ll wave that off, too, in which case, you know, you’ve got to pick your battles in this life and I don’t think this one is a good pick. He treats you fairly at work; you haven’t suffered any setbacks (that you’ve mentioned) as a result of his lunchtime largesse; others who lunch with you guys are no doubt aware of his ideas about certain matters of etiquette, and don’t think any less of you for them.
So, try once more to point out why you might like to return his generosity now and then, but if he’s still not having it, leave it.
Help me Sars! I do confess to having a bit of a temper, but I’ve really put my
foot in it this time. Well, maybe not so much put my foot in, as jumped in
with both feet in a full-blown cannonball. I really need your sage advice as
to how I can fix this situation.
A close friend of mine (I’ll call her Tracey), and her husband, have been
struggling with infertility for close to a year. We were having a phone
conversation last weekend and she asked what I had been up to lately. I
launched into a description of a visit from my brother, his wife and their six-
week-old son. Being a doting aunt, I was describing the brilliance of my young
nephew and his prowess at getting his fist in his mouth when Tracey interrupted
with a curt comment that she really didn’t want to hear about the baby. I
realize that this can be a sensitive issue for her in her situation, so I tried
to change the subject.
Unfortunately, Tracey would not let it go. She immeadiately went off on a rant
about how insensitive I was, how after being friends for over ten years I
should know her better than that, and how dare I bring up the topic of babies
when I know how hard she and her husband are trying to have one. Then she went
on to say that my choice not to have children at this point in my life (we’re
both in our early thirties) was a direct slap in the face to her and I didn’t
even have the right to express my sorrow to her with regards to their
situation. It went on for several minutes in this vein, boiling down to: how
dare I chose not to have children when she wants them so badly.
Unfortunately, this is where I lost my temper. I replied that just because I
could have children didn’t mean I should, any more than the fact that she is
having trouble meant that she shouldn’t have children. We both hung up at that
point, and haven’t spoken since.
What can I do now? On one hand, she is (or was) a very close friend and I
don’t want to lose her friendship. On the other, I don’t want to feel like I
have to constantly defend my choices to her.
Proud (but Cranky) Aunt
Dear Auntie,
Okay, I will grant Tracey that your going on about your nephew was maybe not so sensitive…but you apologized (I assume) and tried to change the subject, and for her to go off on your child-related choices and make them all about her was totally not appropriate to what happened, in my opinion.
But I bet she knows that, and I bet she’s totally embarrassed. She basically was like, “Nobody is allowed to talk about babies to me, ever, and anyone who is able to have a baby when I can’t is out to get me, and FUCK YOU!” which is completely irrational, but which is also, I would think, completely normal to feel in her situation, even if she’d have done better to scream it into a pillow or write it in her diary instead of ripping a strip off you for something that, in the end, has nothing to do with you. She’s horribly frustrated, and she lost it, and I imagine she hasn’t contacted you because she’s cringing about it and doesn’t think you want to hear from her.
But friends spazz on each other. It happens. Or maybe she really does think your ovaries are taunting her, but I doubt it — I think she just went off on what was closest to her, which was you, and regrets it now, as you do. Contact her, apologize for upsetting her, and tell her you don’t want to lose her friendship. She’ll probably be all “oh, no, I’M sorry,” and you’ll have a little talk about communicating better, and it’ll be fine. If she’s still really torqued, well, maybe she’s just kind of selfish and you need to move on, but I bet she isn’t. I bet she’d love to hear from you.
Hiya,
I have a question regarding the verbal use of the word “quote.”
Let us pretend that a news anchor is relaying a statement from someone. Which of the following would be correct:
1. “The defendant stated she didn’t know how the cat got into the federal documents.”
2. “The defendant stated quote unquote I don’t know how the cat got into the federal documents.”
3. “The defendant stated quote I don’t know how the cat got into the federal documents unquote.”
4. “The defendant stated quote I don’t know how the cat got into the federal documents.”
I feel that #1 is the best way to go. Why use the word “quote” at all? It’s obvious that the newscaster is relaying what was said by the defendant. But I hear some of our local newscasters using the other three all the time, and it grates. Especially that “quote, unquote” thing before you’ve even finished ending the quote. The hell? How did that come into being?
Anyway, thanks for any insight.
Love,
Why don’t you just break out the air quotes while you are at…Christ
Dear Quote Little Joe, Get Out Of The Federal Documents Unquote,
I don’t know the genesis of actually saying the words “quote unquote” before a quotation. I do know that I have now typed the word “quote” so many times that it has ceased to have any meaning, but let’s forge ahead…I like the first example best, although I would throw in a “that” between “stated” and “she,” just to make it a bit clearer that it’s the defendant’s statement. It’s a little more formal a way of doing it.
But in a newscast, you probably want even more clarity, a stronger signal that the statement you’re about to relay is a direct quotation and not a paraphrase, so in this case — in which the quotation’s end is also the end of the sentence — I would go with #4. And to make sure the anchor read it correctly, I would punctuate it a bit more pointedly, to wit: “The defendant stated, quote, ‘I don’t know how the cats got into the federal documents.'”
It is sort of an annoying tic, but I think it’s more annoying written out, where there’s no need for it, than if you’re listening to the broadcast and you don’t have access to the written version.
How did the cat get into the federal documents, anyway?
Hey Sars,
I have a friend who wants to leave her husband but refuses to do so
because she says she doesn’t want to hurt her children (ages 1 and 3).
Alternately, the man she is having an affair with is also staying with
his wife, even though he admits that his marriage has been dead for
years because…you guessed it — his kids — don’t want to hurt the kids.
I’ve pointed out that children growing up in a household where the
parents fight, don’t love each other and lie to each other (neither
spouse knows that friend and affair man are in love with each other)
might be just as damaging as growing up with divorced parents.
What do you think about this? What do you think about this staying
together “for the kids” business?
Wanting to know, for the kids
Dear Wanting,
I don’t have kids, I am not and have not been married, and my parents are still married to each other and good with it, so my opinion is worth what you’ve paid for it on this. But I do have friends who have gotten divorced while their children were small, and I also have friends whose parents got divorced, and based on what I’ve observed and what they’ve told me, seriously, if the marriage is not working, it’s better to end it.
Kids adjust. Kids that young, especially, will not feel all that uprooted by a divorce, mainly because when you’re a year old, you’re uprooted by everything. You’re just trying to walk without taking a digger, forget worrying about your parents fighting.
On the other hand, kids can sense things; parents will think their kids are oblivious, but they aren’t. They can sense unhappiness. They can sense trouble. And as they get older, constant fighting and hypocritical behavior will get absorbed, and while joint custody logistics are not easy, I think it’s better for a kid to internalize that than a bunch of screaming.
Again, my firsthand experience here is nil, but I have had several friends tell me they wished their parents had split up sooner instead of holding it together for their sakes, because a decision to split up followed by a hundred-percent reduction in arguments would have been the best thing for them, the kids. Also, kids sometimes feel responsible for the divorce no matter what their parents tell them, so making it about them and what’s best for them, and then splitting up anyway eventually? You want to avoid that if you can, because they’ll blame themselves and they shouldn’t have to do that.
A divorce isn’t smooth sailing or anything; it is, at best, a big awkward change. But I think that if the marriage is really not working out, it’s better not to pretend otherwise, and to get it over with and let the kids start dealing with it sooner rather than later. I feel like kids can cope with weird, or upsetting, familial situations pretty well, as long as the adults are honest with them, and with themselves.
Tags: etiquette friendships grammar kids workplace
